US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1460

Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!

NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.

Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.

Well, it looks like Missouri is following Alabama's lead, in a full-on backslide to the dark ages. They're implementing a ban on abortion much the same as Alabama, only starting at 8 weeks, but still not including exceptions for rape or incest. This one wouldn't prosecute the women receiving an abortion, but that wouldn't matter since doctors would be imprisoned for 15 years, so good luck finding someone who would do it in the first place.

It's another case of White Men taking a strong interest in what goes on in women's bodies, and taking a big steaming shit on their rights. As soon as they experience their first periods, the discomfort of pregnancy, the unimaginable pain of childbirth, and they've had to raise a child they never wanted to have, I'd be so much more interested in their take on abortion rights. Until then I'm calling it the anti-woman bill that it is.

It is really only a ban on abortions for the poor as anyone with money will simply travel where they are done. The poor will have options, they just won't be doctors. How can intelligent people think these are good ideas. We have historical evidence it does not even stop abortions it just makes them way more dangerous.

On May 17 2019 01:38 JimmiC wrote:It is really only a ban on abortions for the poor as anyone with money will simply travel where they are done. The poor will have options, they just won't be doctors. How can intelligent people think these are good ideas. We have historical evidence it does not even stop abortions it just makes them way more dangerous.

I fear the people behind this knows exactly what they're implementing, and what the consequences are. Not that ignorance is even a valid excuse in the first place. These are some grade A evil assholes.

On May 17 2019 01:38 JimmiC wrote:It is really only a ban on abortions for the poor as anyone with money will simply travel where they are done. The poor will have options, they just won't be doctors. How can intelligent people think these are good ideas. We have historical evidence it does not even stop abortions it just makes them way more dangerous.

Some people it's "morality", they view cell growth as human. This isn't based on any real metric but feelings. It's also how you can completely ignore quality of life because if the bar is just life then quality of said life is irrelevant because you don't actually care about how people are just that people are. Or at least that's my understanding of it, if there is a support of this that isn't an appeal to feelings i've never seen it displayed. The only inconsistency i can see with that is if the same people support the death penalty, ofc trying to apply logic to feelings is a pointless endeavor.

On May 17 2019 03:04 Sent. wrote:It's not inconsistent. Aborted kids / clumps of cells didn't do anything to earn their deaths.

You earn death but you don't earn life? So life is something you can take away but it's not granted by us? We don't make life we can only take it away based on our judgements? I find this inconsistent. If a supernatural power grants life and we have no right to interfere with that creation why do we get that right later? We gain this ability once a person shows a will that we don't think is correct? So is a will equivalent to a life as that's what we're measuring to terminate it, how can we be so sure that's life if a will cannot be displayed. If a will is not a life then why are we using a person's will as a judgement to end life.

When is it a clump of cells and just like removing a tumor, and when is it a human life subject to protections? Fetal heartbeat, fetal pain, above 50% survival rate premature delivery (viability outside womb), actual delivery (magic vagina dust confers humanity, or Caesarian?), hours after delivery (esp if diagnosed with abnormality?)

Those kind of questions are why late term abortion and after-birth abortion like Virginia and New York sound quite different from first trimesters like Alabama and Georgia.

Then after one’s almost done with philosophical and moral, the practical and sociological overlaps. So maybe it’s a distinct human baby prior to early or full-term birth, but the mother also is human life and impacted and birth control failure/life change/rape-incest/pressured to abort or keep.

I don’t think either position, including states on both extremes, is worth single-argument dismissal.

Great armies come from happy zealots, and happy zealots come from California!

On May 17 2019 01:38 JimmiC wrote:It is really only a ban on abortions for the poor as anyone with money will simply travel where they are done. The poor will have options, they just won't be doctors. How can intelligent people think these are good ideas. We have historical evidence it does not even stop abortions it just makes them way more dangerous.

Not the case in Georgia.

"Even women who seek lawful abortions out of state may not escape punishment. If a Georgia resident plans to travel elsewhere to obtain an abortion, she may be charged with conspiracy to commit murder, punishable by 10 years’ imprisonment. An individual who helps a woman plan her trip to get an out-of-state abortion, or transports her to the clinic, may also be charged with conspiracy. These individuals, after all, are “conspiring” to end of the life of a “person” with “full legal recognition” under Georgia law."

When it comes to abortion, I think the focus on the fetal component is a clever misdirection by architects of the legislation, because it is somewhat complicated and immersed in scientific jargon.

To me the argument is about autonomy and a refusal to allow women to have it. That's why, for many, any birth control is akin to abortion. The science is irrelevant for them.

Imagine the absurdity of Republican men arguing that the government should make such determinations about their own bodies.

It's very rude to talk to oligarchs like that. They prefer relentless submission and sycophantic worship for their attempts to secure a system by which they as individuals & cadres determine the course of the commons.

On May 11 2019 15:12 ShambhalaWar wrote:I like Andrew Yang, he is very interesting in his ideas, and nobody else is talking about universal basic income as a leading issue. Eventually we will all have to get there as automation removes the ability for poeople to create meaningful income.

But I do think it's a little premature. Though... Universal basic income I think would seriously inject the economy and keep it strong for a long time.

Keeping all that in mind,l Bernie 2020.

I work with robotic arms in a factory all day, i talked with integrators and engineers it'd still be a long time before we could somehow eliminate the remaining industrial jobs. Making something even if one step uses a robot there are 10 steps before that step and 10 steps after that you either need to automate as well or just have a person do it. Automation frees up available man hours to expand productivity, there will still be a need for a minimum amount of people. Increased productivity will lead to jobs somewhere eventually at least for the foreseeable future. A progressive tax to reduce the concentrated wealth is far more relevant to today than worrying about automation "killing" jobs.

I think you are underestimating the greed of people, amazon go stores are a prime (pun intended) example. Some people work there, but the point of the store is to monetize more, through less overhead of employing workers.

As technology advances (which is an exponential advance) the requirement of labor decreases.

Eventually we will be there, we aren't fully there now... but that doesn't mean we shouldn't start thinking about it. A "long-time" is a very subjective statement, and when we get there if we haven't prepared it will be a large scale humanitarian disaster.

There wouldn't be a market to sell things to begin with because everyone wouldn't be able to afford things due to no jobs.

You don't know that, in fact it is very unlikely that a market wouldn't exist.

For example, getting ride of employees only would affect your market on a local level. People that work near the plant, but no longer had jobs or money couldn't afford your products, but then you could just shift your market to anywhere in the world... That was literally amazon's entire business model. Less employees and no overhead of running a store, they don't even have to sell to you, you just buy it yourself.

You also have to understand the people that run these companies are only interested in making the most money they can before it starts to adversely impact them on a personal level (which will likely never happen).

You might want to ask yourself the question, "At what point does automation actually hurt a company?" The answer is likely, never... not in the lifetime of that particular CEO who automates an entire or majority of a company. It might hurt one of the next 2 CEOs, but it also might not.

Amazon isn't worried about the long term impact of what they do on society, if they did care about that, they would pay a living wage to their employees, knowing that they money would be pumped back into society and circulated back to the company, breathing life into society. But instead they are trying to land rockets on the moon, or create flame throwers like tesla.

Financial hoarding done by the rich and automation both contribute to a similar problem of the economy. Both create the same negative side effect of preventing circulation of money in the economy, by continuing to grow a wealth disparity.

On May 17 2019 03:04 Sent. wrote:It's not inconsistent. Aborted kids / clumps of cells didn't do anything to earn their deaths.

You earn death but you don't earn life? So life is something you can take away but it's not granted by us? We don't make life we can only take it away based on our judgements? I find this inconsistent. If a supernatural power grants life and we have no right to interfere with that creation why do we get that right later? We gain this ability once a person shows a will that we don't think is correct? So is a will equivalent to a life as that's what we're measuring to terminate it, how can we be so sure that's life if a will cannot be displayed. If a will is not a life then why are we using a person's will as a judgement to end life.

You don't earn your life, you are your life. You can't earn it becuase you don't exist before it starts. Once it begins, you gain the rights (like the right to live your life) and duties of a human being. If you break the rules, you earn a punishment that limits or removes your rights. At this point you can debate whether the collective should have the right to terminate the life of a unit that broke the rules, but I don't think your opinion on that matter should determine your opinion on whether units that are yet to be born should have the right to live.

For me, it's the hypocrisy of valuing human life so much... but only if it comes from a US citizen, fuck immigrants. And only if they are unborn, fuck the grown poor, it's their own fault if they are poor. And we don't care anyway what shitty life they will have, raised by a raped single mother.

God is a convenient excuse when it serves some interests, but the rest of the scriptures is very easily ignored. True for all religions.

@ Danglars : if I need to set a bar on abortions, I would place it around 2 different times.The first is when the cerebral cortex starts working, as that's what we usually understand as "human life", conscience. Not just electrical reactions to stimuli. This is around 6 months.The second is when the would-be child is able to stay alive outside the womb (medically assisted). Probably around 6 monthes as well.

Any later is too late, a decision should have been taken prior except in difficult cases like rape.These 6-8weeks policies are bullshit. Sometimes the mother is not even aware she is pregnant by that time. And then it gives her what. One week to take a decision she will have to deal with the rest of her life ? Just bullshit by idiot bigots thinking out of their arse, that don't realize they are destroying one life, maybe two, while they will never have to deal with the aftermath of their decision, for a belief they only care for when it's convenient and it doesn't relate to them.

On May 17 2019 03:04 Sent. wrote:It's not inconsistent. Aborted kids / clumps of cells didn't do anything to earn their deaths.

You earn death but you don't earn life? So life is something you can take away but it's not granted by us? We don't make life we can only take it away based on our judgements? I find this inconsistent. If a supernatural power grants life and we have no right to interfere with that creation why do we get that right later? We gain this ability once a person shows a will that we don't think is correct? So is a will equivalent to a life as that's what we're measuring to terminate it, how can we be so sure that's life if a will cannot be displayed. If a will is not a life then why are we using a person's will as a judgement to end life.

You don't earn your life, you are your life. You can't earn it becuase you don't exist before it starts. Once it begins, you gain the rights (like the right to live your life) and duties of a human being. If you break the rules, you earn a punishment that limits or removes your rights. At this point you can debate whether the collective should have the right to terminate the life of a unit that broke the rules, but I don't think your opinion on that matter should determine your opinion on whether units that are yet to be born should have the right to live.

You don’t think supporting state sponsored killing relates at all to calling one’s self “pro-life”?

"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"